bakerstreetfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Fruipit
Welcome! Hello and welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Toby Haynes page. If you're new to wikia or just new to , you might want to check out some of these links. Not sure where to start? *You might want to read our page all about us *You should also be sure sure to read our policies! *Check out the , and see . *Try out the Sandbox, which is a place to practice editing or formatting without changing any serious content. *If you have a question, you can ask any of the or post a question in the forum for other members to answer. Adding content: *Check out the list of to see what pages are linked to but do not yet exist. *Want to help editing pages we're stuck on? See a full list of stubs here. *Before creating a new page, check to see if the same page with a slightly different spelling or title exists. *When editing on a page make sure there are links on the page, otherwise it's a . *Make sure other pages link to the page you're editing otherwise it's a . *You might also want to check out our Manual of Style - we're in the process of writing this so check it out and have your say about how Baker Street should look. I'm happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you! Please leave me a message on my talk page if I can help with anything. Amateur Obsessive (talk) 02:11, April 24, 2014 (UTC) Thanks Many thanks for clarifying - I've deleted the photo and will figure out how to make an avatar later! All best, Charles Veley :Not a problem :) Thank you for being very understanding. I've been around wikia for a while, and so if you need any help at all with hotlinking the image or uploading it as your avatar, don't be afraid to ask! :) 12:08, April 28, 2014 (UTC) Go Away You're delusional and not needed here. We already have Obi, Sherrinford, AO, Tribble-Freund, Nxt, and Jiskran here. Also, we don't need another fangirl. Go back to your Avatar wiki or better yet go to HELL! -- 13:20, April 29, 2014 (UTC) :That really isn't a very pleasant attitude. Why should I not contribute; I love Sherlock just as much as any of them. I ask again; how am I delusional? I'm not a fangirl, I'm a person who enjoys editing and enjoys wiki. We also don't need another anonymous user who thinks that by not having a name, they can be as rude as they want, but you seem to have taken up that role rather well. I have no had a single other user complain about me yet, but you can feel free to do that if they do, too. Better yet, stop hiding behind numbers and create an account. 13:30, April 29, 2014 (UTC) ::Even if I create an account you still won't know who I am, fool. "I have no had a single other user complain about me yet, but you can feel free to do that if they do, too." No had? You're obsessed in correcting others on their spelling and grammar and yet you can't proofread your own? Learn more and come back later, little bitch; or better yet don't come back at all. Just rot in your little cellar and burn in hell. ..|.. -- 14:54, April 29, 2014 (UTC) Can't handle a criticism? Also you want to edit in "piece"? Do they teach the English language there in Australia or are you really a stupid bitch? -- 12:05, May 13, 2014 (UTC) I hate bitches. You are a bitch. I hate you. -- 22:54, May 13, 2014 (UTC) I apologize for calling you a bitch. I won't call you a bitch anymore. Please accept my apology. -- 09:55, May 14, 2014 (UTC) :I don't care that you call me a bitch. I really just want to be allowed to edit in peace. 09:56, May 14, 2014 (UTC) ::Let's put this in the past. I won't call you a bitch anymore. Do you accept my apology? -- 10:02, May 14, 2014 (UTC) :::If you stop undoing my edits, then there's no reason to apologise. You can go your way and I'll go mine, and if something comes up with which we disagree, we discuss it, yeah? 10:03, May 14, 2014 (UTC) ::::Okay. I won't call you a bitch anymore. -- 10:07, May 14, 2014 (UTC) Hi! Have a good day! -- 23:56, May 14, 2014 (UTC) Apologies Hey Fruipit, welcome to the Sherlock community! :D I wanted to apologize for the actions of some the anons; they have been extremely rude and really mean to you. They're just being troublemakers and trolls, pay no attention to what they say. I hope they don't ruin your experience on the wiki or anything. Anyway, it's great to see a new user helping out and editing. :) See you around! —Nxtstep101 (talk) 16:36, April 29, 2014 (UTC) :Hi there! :It's not a problem, honestly. I'm not used to dealing with nonies anymore, so it was a bit of a, uh, shock, but it's a pleasure to know that there are friendly people around too ^^" Relevance People may find the bone structure familiar, therefore a parent or sibling in the acting profession is entirely relevant to this wiki. The 'bare bones' are designed to be expanded upon. Please stop imposing your personal philosophy on everyone else's enjoyment. Alex Jiskran 01:25, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :I'm not sure how a familiar 'bone structure' is in any way relevant. The fact that he has a brother, who is in such and such a show, is not relevant. You can say he has a brother, sure, but the rest is elaboration that we just don't need. This is a Sherlock encyclopaedia, not an encyclopaedia branching out to encompass everything. 01:27, May 6, 2014 (UTC) ::Because people may find the face familiar, but be unable to place exactly where they've seen it. Since the entire entry still comes to less than six whole lines, this is hardly a deluge of superfluous data. Alex Jiskran 01:30, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :::I've edited it to keep the brother, however telling people what he's been in truly is pointless. Look, I don't want to fight on here. I just want to edit. 01:32, May 6, 2014 (UTC) ::::Then with over 800 pages extant and more needed, if you could focus your efforts on adding material rather than removing harmless, at least, additions of mine, there is no reason we cannot happily go our separate ways around this place. Alex Jiskran 01:37, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :::::I am actually waiting for some of my suggestions to be accepted or rejected regarding the MoS before I start going full-out, as I don't want to do a massive overhaul of a page to write it in-universe and then having the community decide that it is not the way we are going to write articles. What I can do is maintain the accuracy of, especially the short, articles. If something is not relevant to the character/place/actor, then it has no need to be on this wiki. 01:40, May 6, 2014 (UTC) Does your pedantry either A) Bring you pleasure or B) Aid in the growth and enjoyment of this wiki for its base of users? If not, you might consider reprioritising. There are many things for which there is no causal, desperate need, but when they are harmless, and allow others to bring their mite to the process in their own fashion, what do you perceive as the advantage in restricting them? The only 'benefit' I can see is for a mind so rigidly structured that it requires absolute compliance without exception, and, as far as I'm aware, that is not the philosophy of Wikia or this wiki. Alex Jiskran 01:45, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :We have no philosophy on this wiki yet. It's still being created. My pedantry, as you call it, gives me a sense of consistency and calmness because I know everything is going to be the same, no matter what. I don't want to restrict them. I want this wiki to be clear and concise, without any confusion. Rules are made to keep order, not to repress people. Yes, I undid your edit at first, but after you re-added and justified it further, I only removed the information that wasn't relevant to that page. I'm not sure how that's being restrictive. You said your piece, I said mine, and together, we worked out a compromise (even if it has developed into slightly angered and/or hurt feelings). 01:50, May 6, 2014 (UTC) ::Every manifestation to date of Sherlock Holmes has been first and foremost about telling the tales. Nowhere in the universe, save perhaps if such exist in realms consisting entirely of machines, is everything "going to be the same, no matter what" - errare humanum est. If pages cannot have some individualisation, some embellishment which is non-essential but does not harm the essential integrity, this become the electronic equivalent of a very dry tome. It is not a science textbook, in which a set of accepted principles are all that matter to the majority of readers. To the best of my knowledge it is not intended to merely categorise in a dissectional manner the components of the various versions of Holmes; there is an element of narrative, opinion and open-ended invitation to explore. Alex Jiskran 02:07, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :::I want the same formatting. The same type of dashes. I want the same policies to apply all across the wiki. I don't want information that is pointless, irrelevant, speculative, or wrong. As this is descending into an edit war, with a nony now editing, status quo should prevail. No, it is not a science textbook; it is an encyclopaedia. We should be reporting facts that are relevant. 02:11, May 6, 2014 (UTC) And in a democratic secenario, barring ridiculous abuse for external reasons, the decision of what is relevant should surely rest with the clear majority of voices, should it not, rather than merely one user, Admin or otherwise, providing their interpretation of that term. Alex Jiskran 02:15, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :I would rather wait for AO to look through everything. This is not the first time a nony has called me 'delusional', and the other two were blocked. So, I'm sorry if I really don't see how the majority in this case will win, when at least 1 of the 2 is a troll. 02:18, May 6, 2014 (UTC) I never cited this individual, nor intended to imply their corroboration as definitive, merely that we should leave the matter to the preponderance of opinions of other (name) users, since we are unlikely to agree, it seems. Alex Jiskran 02:21, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :Ah, okay. So, agree to disagree until we can have a third perspective? I can do that. 02:23, May 6, 2014 (UTC) Me too - especially if it means we can both get back to making positive contributions to this and other wikis. :) Alex Jiskran 02:25, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :Aye :) Oh, and it was nice to meet you. Hi :) 02:28, May 6, 2014 (UTC) To avoid another to and fro Official materials for Sherlock, and publicity, all and always use the term 'series', not season. That's why Sherlock (2010): Episodes said what it said. Alex Jiskran 03:32, May 9, 2014 (UTC) :Ahh. I take 'series' to mean more like, 'Sherlock, the new series from the BBC, has just confirmed a fourth season'. Thanks for telling me! 03:45, May 9, 2014 (UTC) General Shan Do try to find it and if you prove me wrong, edit it as you like. -- 03:43, May 16, 2014 (UTC) :Oh those were different changes. I won't change that 'General' part at the beginning unless I find it, and if I do, I'll put the quote here :) actually, 'general' in that context is not a proper noun, thus it shouldn't be capitalised... 03:45, May 16, 2014 (UTC) ::Okay, I'm on the episode. At 46:46, Soo Lin says "In the power of the one they call Shan. The Black Lotus general". If she is in power, it can be taken to mean that she is the leader, yes? 08:08, May 16, 2014 (UTC) Date style/format Hello, since we're using British English on the wiki, could you stop changing the dates to American style? It'll only have to be changed back again. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 09:56, May 18, 2014 (UTC) :Can do, but many of them have to be changed, anyway, as part of the format is wrong. That's okay, though, yes? 09:57, May 18, 2014 (UTC) ::Changed in what way? --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 10:00, May 18, 2014 (UTC) :::Well, with the format I've been changing it to, it has to be set up without the 'th' on the day formats. However, in the British English one that is to be used across the entire wiki, it has to have these. This is due to the position of the date. May 18th, 2014, versus 18 May, 2014, in British English and American formatting respectively (note the commas, which are also required). 10:03, May 18, 2014 (UTC) ::::What I'm talking about is that the day come first: day/Month/year - so it should be 18th May, 2014. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 10:11, May 18, 2014 (UTC) :::::Yes, I know, but I just find the other one to be neater – hence my usage of it, despite being a native BE speaker. I'll make sure they fit the format your format, though :P I honestly don't actually care, so long as it's consistent. 10:15, May 18, 2014 (UTC) Bot After looking over some of your recent edits, it seems as though you might have used a bot. If so, did you ask AO? I'm pretty sure anything edits in mainspace with a bot should be done by a flagged bot. —Nxtstep101 (talk) 19:46, May 18, 2014 (UTC) :Ahh, that's not a bot, but I am using AWB to make most of those as it just saves time when I'm doing the same things. The difference is that I have to manually accept or reject each edit (as sometimes we don't want underscores changed to spaces or hypens to dashes). It also means I can see the pages we have on the wiki, and edit them as I notice other discrepancies (such as changing over the references to use the 'cite web' template). 23:54, May 18, 2014 (UTC) ::Well that's what I meant: using a bot program to make editing go faster. Some wikis only allow flagged bots to use such programs when editing, that's why I suggested that you ask AO before using one. —Nxtstep101 (talk) 02:43, May 20, 2014 (UTC) :::I did mention it to AO, but he never got back to me. I would be making these edits regardless, but as I said above, it saves time. The reason I haven't flagged it as a bot is because, well, it isn't a bot. It's not automated. All this does is show me where the edits need to be made. 02:52, May 20, 2014 (UTC) Template change Why did you feel the need to change the Episode template? The way it was before was much simpler. —Nxtstep101 (talk) 13:44, May 20, 2014 (UTC) :I changed it for consistency with other articles. Trust me, I would rather not have to (and if I were getting the 'pic' badge, I certainly wouldn't because that seems incredibly unfair well, it didn't for the first page. What do you suggest we do?). However, if you hadn't noticed, I'm a bit of a stickler for consistency – as far as I can tell, all the other types of infoboxes need the 'file' part in order for the image to show up, and I dislike how the other one is different. It makes it harder to remember when one is always different, and, well, consistency is good... 13:47, May 20, 2014 (UTC) ::Consistency is good; I don't mind it. What I do think should be done instead, is to have a flagged bot change all the articles, rather than a person, especially when there are more than 75 episode articles. —Nxtstep101 (talk) 13:50, May 20, 2014 (UTC) :::All right. Do you know anyone with a bot? Because, well, I'm happy to create a bot account to make those changes and flag it, although I would really rather not do that. I like just being a person, tbh. I just don't like the idea of those images being only present in the code for the time being. 13:52, May 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::I run a bot, but of course, he isn't flagged here. I wasn't saying to flag your account, but rather another account (like above) that would be the bot. Peradventure you should just change back the code until we get a bot flagged? —Nxtstep101 (talk) 13:56, May 20, 2014 (UTC) :::::Honestly, at the moment, I'm not sure it completely matters. You've to,d me, and he's there to fix a coding error (well, a new coding error). I'm not actually entirely sure what you mean when you say 'flagged'. Does that just mean he doesn't get badges and is registered as being a 'bot'? Oh, I understood that it wouldn't be my account, but a new one ^^" But perhaps you're right... can only an admin flag an account? 14:01, May 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::::Yes, flagged just means that the user doesn't earn any badges, and his edits do not show up in wiki activity. Actually, only staff can flag a bot, so we would need to send them an email. —Nxtstep101 (talk) 14:04, May 20, 2014 (UTC) indent: Hmm, yes, I think changing it back would be best, as I've also noticed that the actor infobox has the same error. So, it's the location, character, story, and... I'm not sure what other ones we have, but those infoboxes are perfectly fine. So, yeah. For the time being, changing it back would be best. Let me know when/if your bot gets flagged, please :) 14:07, May 20, 2014 (UTC) :Alright, sounds good. Will do. :) —Nxtstep101 (talk) 14:09, May 20, 2014 (UTC) ::Awesome. And I never really introduced myself, but I've seen you around :D Nice to meet one of the... 5 registered users who edit here :P 14:11, May 20, 2014 (UTC) :::Yeah. XD I think I kinda introduced myself when I apologized for the anons attacking you. :P —Nxtstep101 (talk) 17:46, May 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::You know, I don't even remember if you did @_@ it's been a hectic month aha xD actually, that happens a lot, and I'm not sure why (hence my bubble really only being Avatar Wiki until now). Did you ever get attacked like that? o.o 17:50, May 20, 2014 (UTC) Interlanguge links Hello. Why are you removing the interlanguage links from categories? --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 16:39, May 20, 2014 (UTC) :Well, why are they needed? As far as I am aware, people don't use categories for interlanguage links. I've never seen it on any other wiki @_@ I mean, if you don't want me to, I don't remove them, but I just didn't see the use or purpose of it :/ Sorry 16:40, May 20, 2014 (UTC) ::Well, to put it another way, what harm are they doing? They might not get used much but they're not hurting anything by being there. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 18:18, May 20, 2014 (UTC) :::I know, but that boils down to my personal preference of everything being absolutely consistent. Those links aren't consistent (and I've actually noticed some discrepancies with categories that will have to wait for a reasonable hour for my poor brain to go through and organise). I won't remove any more :) 18:20, May 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::Exactly. Your personal preference. Just because something makes sense to you to change it doesn't mean there isn't a good reason for how we're already doing it. Please consult the community before making changes like this - especially when comes to removing things. ::::Also, why have you renamed the image categories? And I noticed on your profile that you plan to make more cite templates for episodes. You might want to wait till the MoS is finalized and it's decided how we want to format these references.--Amateur Obsessive (talk) 13:41, May 21, 2014 (UTC) :::::I mean my preference for everything being consistent. I'm perfectly open to other methods. And, ah, I didn't even realise we had those categories—the only one specified in the image policy is the standard 'images' category. :::::Those cite templates are two-fold. We need to specify where an image came from as a source—I don't believe just adding the 'fair use' licensing is good enough when we can't prove it's fair use. Thus, I've been using the cite template I created for the 'Sherlock (2010)' articles on the images I've been uploading. I'm actually waiting for people to respond to the talk pages... well, all of them, really, and no one is. I don't want to wait for community approval to do things I know will benefit the community. Even if we end up changing the exact way we do things, I do know my edits won't be in vain. 13:47, May 21, 2014 (UTC) Jeanette The scene to a degree hinges (at least emotionally) on the question of Sherlock's awareness and intent, therefore to place the possibility, since I included the qualifier, that Sherlock is choosing his manner of expression in front of the reader is key to processing the situation in the light of its greater impact on the Watson/Holmes dynamic. It also, I believe, helps to make the later " by 'mistake' " an open point rather than a clear piece of sarcasm. Overall, I must say that your near-obsessive need to have everything conform to the pre-existing standards in your head is draining much of the pleasure I used to feel in contributing to this wiki. If you could loosen up a bit, I for one would greatly appreciate it. Alex Jiskran 01:26, May 22, 2014 (UTC) ::This is an encyclopaedia of Sherlock, in all its forms. As far as I am aware, encyclopaedias report facts, not speculation. That includes bias. If we say something in an article, we need to have a source to back it up, otherwise we may as well allow fanfiction to seep through all the articles. ::I've left many suggestions on talk pages, however they have been going unanswered. Thus, I am treating this wiki how I would treat 'Wikipedia'. Fact only, proper formatting, references. 01:42, May 22, 2014 (UTC) :::The fact is that the doubt is essential to the scene. Alex Jiskran 01:44, May 22, 2014 (UTC) ::::I have rewritten it. I'm not sure what 'fact' you are talking about, nor why it would be essential. 01:47, May 22, 2014 (UTC) :::::The unresolved (at least explicitly) question of whether Sherlock's mental prioritisation has indeed removed this information from his readily accessible data, or whether he is feigning this, in his own rather juvenile attempt to sabotage Watson's relationship. Your rewrite eliminates that whole concept. Alex Jiskran 01:51, May 22, 2014 (UTC) indent Aye, it does. Because to 'suppose' and 'presume' that he did indeed remove it or ifJohn's personal life is of no huge significance to Sherlock is not answered. It cannot be both, and to say one is to say that it's not the other, when it could be. Hence the removal—it's speculation. 02:04, May 22, 2014 (UTC) :Neither 'suppose' nor 'presume' was used, merely a structure to introduce doubt. As we are dealing with a work of art and fiction, the scientific absolutes you seem to crave are not always available, and this wiki, as I understand it, is as much a communal gathering point as a definitive reference source for all things Holmes. No open editing online resource can be as categorically standardised as something published, physically or electronically, under a single imprimatur. I believe it's meant to be fun to be here, for the majority of contributors anyway. Perhaps we could get a thread started and see what the official line on this is. Alex Jiskran 02:10, May 22, 2014 (UTC) ::Exactly. Doubt. Which makes it seem like we doubt our own words. The science absolute works, so long as users are willing to let it and not introduce their own bias and opinions onto an article. ::I have started a thread on the MoS talk page, but I would also like all my other comments to be discussed so that we can actually get something up on that page. Same as with the image policy. 02:16, May 22, 2014 (UTC) Dating "1123 BCE" is over three thousand years ago (as the variant on BC). If you must date in that manner it should be "1123 CE". Alex Jiskran 11:23, May 22, 2014 (UTC) :That was just an error. I do know the difference. You can fix it if it's wrong, you know; you don't need to tell me about every tiny mistake I've made :/ 11:34, May 22, 2014 (UTC) Changes to policy I can't believe I've even got to say this, but policy only gets changed after discussion with the community, once some sort of consensus is reached, and then only by an admin. Do not change policy as you changed the image policy earlier. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 17:27, May 22, 2014 (UTC) :No one is replying to the discussion. At all. I've left several message there that remain unacknowledged and unanswered. I know that the policy on this wiki is only changed after community discussion, however that change is not a change exclusive to this wiki. The changes I made are in reference to a wikia policy, and that encompasses all wikis. You can read the relevant section here. 17:30, May 22, 2014 (UTC) ::People have other things to do then sit behind a computer screen 24/7. Lack of immediate response is no excuse for acting without consensus. Also, given the speed and quantity of your recent edits I've had trouble keeping up - I'm sure I'm not the only one. ::You could ask people individually for their opinion, you could ask me to highlight the discussion to the community, you could wait a little longer for a reply. ::I need to properly read the material you added when I have time, but if the changes you made are reflecting wikia ToU then there is no urgent reason to state them again here - they already apply to us and following wikias ToU is already in our policies in the Baker Street Wiki:Behaviour policy. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 17:44, May 22, 2014 (UTC) :::I'm not asking for them to respond straight-away, however it does become frustrating when 22 days have lapsed without a response, and other issues keep piling up. :::I don't like going to people and asking for them to give input, as to me, it's as though I'm advertising my own perspective. :::The reason I added it is so that when people upload new images, they know to add that stuff as they go. It saves another user having to do it in the future—especially when they don't know where the image came from. I have no idea where you got this file from, for instance, and thus cannot add the source. :::As one more note, is there a formal way to change images? Because I uploaded a new image for The Blind Banker page, and it was reverted by a nony who questioned my motives regarding badges. If you look at the file, you'll see it is a better fit for that episode. 17:52, May 22, 2014 (UTC) ::::If you want input then sometimes that what you've got to do. People still might be interested in any proposed changes though. ::::A lot of the files I uploaded where from when this wiki merged with the then Sherlock wiki. I uploaded all the files that were on that wiki when transferring the content. ::::/shrug/ Either image works for that ep imo. And doesn't the original image actually have a picture of the titular "Blind Banker"? (The gratified painting). --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 21:05, May 22, 2014 (UTC) :::::Hmm, perhaps I should propose a time-limit; it would not go awry. Say, two weeks, and after that, the side with the most consensus goes through. If there was no feedback, it is assumed that the community has nothing against the proposal and it goes through. People are more likely to speak up when they oppose something, it seems. :::::Ahh, and that there is exactly my point. How do we know it is Carl Powers? I am planning on going through and sorting every image to make navigation through them easier, and I would like to have a source to put up there. :::::The original has Sherlock standing in front of it. I changed the image because, while the 'Blind Banker' is part of the episode, the entirety of the plot revolves around a Chinese crime syndicate that uses ciphers to communicate. The cipher is a major part of the episode; the blind banker really just falls by the wayside. 22:23, May 22, 2014 (UTC) Clarification, please What is the significance of/need for this '!' on the general pages for "versions" and similar in categories? Can't those be left as the group page? Alex Jiskran 03:44, May 23, 2014 (UTC) :I've been putting that at the end of the canon pages in order for it to sort as first in the specific categories. It is only in the 'versions of...' categories, such as that Category:Versions of Sherlock Holmes in order to facilitate navigation—there isn't a great big list of names all categorised under 'H' for Holmes. Instead, it is categorised by the last name of the actor ('C' for Cumberbatch). I did the 221B Baker Street pages for consistency with those other 'versions of' categories. 03:52, May 23, 2014 (UTC) The Blind Banker You got your support, do the honors. --Sherrinford (talk) 06:39, May 24, 2014 (UTC) Formatting Look at the actual articles. Ex. Step Nine --Sherrinford (talk) 02:12, June 3, 2014 (UTC) :Hmm, now there is a good reason. 02:15, June 3, 2014 (UTC) ::At long last, you understood. --Sherrinford (talk) 02:19, June 3, 2014 (UTC) Re-wording The original entry was entirely good British English, your amendment added nothing to the clarity and much to the length, and I do you the courtesy of leaving your edits in your voice when the difference is merely a stylistic, not factual or grammatical, one, and expect you to extend me the same consideration. Alex Jiskran 04:31, June 3, 2014 (UTC)